On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 05:39:16PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > On 01.10.10 12:39, Joerg Dorchain wrote: > > Well, I could agree agree that "wrong" means not thought of by > > RfC-Designers and bind implementators (yet). > > probably it was not thought because it's wrong.
This point is getting religious now, IMHO. > > > > less palatable option: > > > > > > 1. Make the other DNS software available on another IP. So normal DNS > > > behaviour works. > > > > Hm, this is not too easy in practice, but of course optimal solution. > > IPv6 will help here, I hope. > > I don't think this will solve the problem, it will just be a workaround for > it. With IPv6, I see much better chances of having more than one address available, which would make the best architectural solution a practical one as well. > > > > 2. Add the zone as a slave within your authoritative view. (this option > > > may > > > be the easiest for your situation). > > > > Not feasible as it contains dynamically generated content, > > typically with a TTL of 0. > > this strongly indicates that there's something broken in your DNS. The DNS > is not designed to provide anything that short-lived, the whole DNS > architecture is based on cachind. Yes, DNS works best with caching. I know that this setup is a corner case and very individual (If would had two public IPs then I would be fine) To be a bit polemic, if you think it is wrong, TTL of 0 should be forbidden, I suppose. > > Are you doing any kind of DNS-based load balancing? No, then multiple A records or so would be just fine. Bye, Joerg
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
